Fucking freak.
In case you missed it (as I did) Alan Moore gave a big interview a little bit ago to Bleeding Cool in which he talked about Watchmen and how he’s going to refuse to speak to various other of his collaborators because he’s a crank and, oh, incidentally, DC comics is run by what we would call disease-ridden rodents if doing so would not get us sued for defamation by capybaras with head colds.
As I said, I missed the interview, and didn’t actually read it in full until just now because, (a) I already knew that Alan Moore was a crank, and (b) I already knew that DC comics was a cess pit. So I felt I had the gist.
However, it turns out others saw some novelty there. Specifically, Tom Spurgeon has a really excellent discussion on his site.
So let me suggest that anyone that just throws their hands up and says “Oh, that Alan Moore is crazy” isn’t just operating from a dubious moral position, they don’t know their history. Forget 25 years of Watchmen shenanigans for a second. If I had had just the experience Alan Moore had with ABC, where I had this giant, multi-pronged project with a publisher not DC in part because they were not DC and then found out one day when I felt I was too far along to back out without screwing over all my friends that my projects were part of a big sale to DC, I would suspect that company of bugging my phone and poisoning my water. If I had had the subsequent experience of being promised certain protections from aspects of DC editorial and then that falling through in absolutely pathetic and super-aggravating fashion over the stupidest of nonsense, I wouldn’t trust them to keep their word on a single damn thing. And that’s just one set of experiences for Moore when it comes to DC. People get more worked up in many industries when someone bogarts their parking space or makes them turn down a paid-for week in Disney World than Moore does here about 25 years of systemic dickery.
Then, in response, T. Campbell argued that Alan Moore should be mocked.
I agree that throwing up our hands and saying “Alan Moore is crazy” does a disservice to Moore, and much more importantly, to the issues raised in his interview and the meta-issue of how a creative person should conduct himself in public. Unfortunately, that denies him the insanity defense, which could be a useful excuse when he airily dismisses both his old friends (ex-friends?) and every comics writer in the new generation, whose work he hasn’t read.
Your argument that other people are crankier with less justification seems a bit desperate. Other people are serial ax murderers; that doesn’t mean we need to set the bar of acceptable behavior low enough to make one-time-only murder okay. Yes, we have all had bad-tempered moments, but the reason comics people care about Moore’s behavior in the first place is that his talent and career have made him a role model. And when role models fail, we should pay attention, because what happened to them could happen to us.
No one’s even mentioned that Moore has also airily dismissed the entire medium of film, several times, but oh it turns out he really just meant all the films that are playing now, which he hasn’t seen, and please won’t you watch his new film project which gets it all right?
Campbell also says:
I’ve never entirely understood the comics community’s addiction to tales of corporate betrayal. When an boulder doesn’t fall on you immediately, but waits for a few minutes and then falls on you, is that a “betrayal?” Because it seems to me that corporations in general don’t have a set of values to betray. They like money. That’s all there is to it. They pursue ethical behavior when it is profitable for them to do so, and individuals at the company are sometimes moral people, but a company is about as moral as a boulder, because it is a group of people with sometimes-conflicting values and opinions brought together by common profit. The basic failure to understand this, the continued attempt to anthropomorphize companies as if they were individuals you could trust or talk to, strikes me as a common failing of the artistic imagination.
Tom Spurgeon supplies an able rebuttal, with which I pretty much agree. I wanted to point out a couple of things from a slightly different angle, though.
First of all, Campbell suggests that Alan Moore is crazy. His primary evidence for this is that Moore dismisses old friends, dimisses comics writers in the current generation whose work he hasn’t read, and dismisses today’s films without having seen many of them. This is not how a “creative person should conduct himself in public.”
One does wonder which creative persons Campbell is thinking about precisely. Not Kanye West or David Boreanaz, I take it — or even Lady Gaga, presumably. Really, is there anybody out there who expects creative people to be beacons of propriety? I thought the expectation was that, on the contrary, creative people would be unpredictable and sometimes not especially nice, what with the driving ambition and the money and the fame and all. Hasn’t Campbell ever seen Behind the Music?
Anyway, while he’s no Varg Vikernes, it’s true that in his own small way Moore is a crank, and from all appearances a very difficult person to deal with. He believes he’s an actual wizard, for goodness sake. His habit of dropping friends is infamous, and he talks smack about his co-creators in public like he’s a rock star rather than a comic book writer. He lived in a polyamorous relationship for some time, and he writes underage pornography and even uses his real name while doing it. He’s a big, dirty hippie with a strong conviction of his own genius, and he’s a lot weirder than the average comics creator or fan. This is not news to even a small degree. In fact, I think it’s safe to say that Moore’s highly unusual career, including its very substantial achievements, probably has something to do with the fact that he comes at comics from an idiosyncratic perspective.
But — how idiosyncratic is it, really, to sneer at contemporary film without really being especially up on it? Or how weird is it to say, “comics today suck” without having read a ton of them? People do that sort of thing all the time. And there’s no reason not to, is there? If you disagree, you disagree, if you agree, you agree. He’s shooting the shit, the way most people do when they talk about art. What’s the harm?
Campbell actually explains the harm in a second post.
Bottom line: I don’t see how there is anything “reasonable” about dismissing large bodies of work, and indeed entire media, that one claims not to have consumed. I can’t help but see a parallel between that kind of closed-mindedness and the closed-mindedness that keeps many people from reading comics.
“The closed-mindedness that keeps many people from reading comics.” It’s the ultimate insidery comics insult. You’re one of *them*, Alan! One of those evil people who doesn’t want to read comics, who thinks we’re a bunch of juvenile morons who don’t know that underwear is worn on the inside! Traitor! Traitor! Traitor!
The main infraction, the “bottom line” that makes Moore not “rational” is the fact that he basically doesn’t give a shit about the stuff he’s supposed to give a shit about. He doesn’t want to read contemporary comics; he doesn’t want to go to the movies. He just wants to crankily complain about them. He’s dipped his toe in once or twice at some point, presumably, he discovered he didn’t like it, and, instead of gripping tighter and tighter in nostalgic ecstasy while searching, searching, searching for the one piece of gold amidst the variant covers, he just said “fuck it.” He’s (gasp!) not a fan. And we all know that if you’re not a fan, you must be insane. And also a bad person. QED.
What’s especially interesting about this is that Moore’s criticism of the comics industry’s practices and creativity is actually tied to fannishness as well. Moore basically argues that DC is screwing him over in substantial part because they’re not creative; they just want to keep recycling the same old properties rather than coming up with something new.
This recycling is, of course, at the center of the current mainstream comics industry. Moore has, more than anyone, shown that said recycling can actually be creative and exciting. But for all his magic, he’s never been able to convince fans of that old dictum, “it’s the singer, not the song.” The mainstream audience remains much more interested in the old moldering properties than it does in the creators who reanimate them. And mainstream companies remain much more interested in what to do next with Batman than they are with what to do next with Alan Moore.
This is why Campbell’s pragmatic ode to the unculpability of corporations rather elaborately misses the point. Tom Spurgeon points out that, “Both DC Comics and Drawn and Quarterly are companies, but one has a mixed record when it comes to how it exploits people and one has an exemplary record,” which is true, but even that’s not exactly the issue. Rather, the issue is that mainstream companies act the way they do because of their history and because of their relationship with their readers and their creators. The music industry is a bastion of nightmarish evil, but they wouldn’t have fucked over Alan Moore in the particular way DC fucked over Alan Moore because you don’t treat creative talent that way in the music industry. And you don’t treat creative talent that way because the creators are more important than any individual thing they create. Fans pay attention to the creators; they care about the creators, not the individual album or the character. Beyonce can make up an alter-ego named Sasha Fierce for one album, but no industry exec is coming along to say, you know, we’re going to take this character and have it record polkas whether you want us to or or not. They don’t do that because it would be fucking ridiculous, and fans wouldn’t stand for it. But DC does it to Alan Moore and fans not only eat it up, they sneer at the man himself when he dares to suggest that the folks they plan to get to write the polkas are soulless, talentless hacks. (Moore even seems to be dissing Grant Morrison! Sacrilege!)
Tom writes that, “I think a lot of this comes down to the fact that for whatever reason, Alan Moore didn’t conduct himself in a way that suited comics fans.” I think that’s right, and I think the reason it didn’t suit comics fans is pretty clear. Namely, it didn’t suit comics fans because Moore is declaring that he is not one of the club. Further, he is declaring that the club screwed him over. His work has been bastardized and his pocket picked precisely because of the insularity, backwardness, and lack of creativity of mainstream companies, mainstream creators, and mainstream fans.
And how do the fans reply to this accusation? By declaring — Fuck you, you dirty hippie, you don’t even read Batman, why should I care what you think? And, oh yeah, how dare you be paranoid or bitter, huh? If you can’t smile and cheer for the latest crossover, then just take your beard and your polyamory and go suck on a snake demon or something.
But, hey, leave those IPs behind when you leave, damn it. I need a Rorschach plush toy for Christmas.
“His primary evidence for this is that Moore dismisses old friends, dimisses comics writers in the current generation whose work he hasn’t read, and dismisses today’s films without having seen many of them. ”
Moore’s problem with film is partially political, I believe. He has a problem with the amount of money spent on making a movie. I think he also has problems with the medium, but, um so what?
Moore’s certainly familiar enough with film that he’s parodied or referenced a number of them in his comics: I, Robot, Being John malkovich, various Quinten Taritono Films, Disney’s Snow White, Superman 1, and probably others I’m not think of at the moment.
Heck, he just wrote a “history of science fiction” article for Dodgem Logic that discussed decades of Hollywood films.
His issues with the medium aren’t going to be mitigated by new films, so this entirely misses the point.
And as for his attacks on modern comics, its obviously too sweeping, since he seems to clump everyone together. But even back in the 80s he wrote about crossover events, in his Twilight of the Superhero pitch:
“If you don’t do it right, if your assembled multitude of characters look merely banal, which I personally believe happened with Secret Wars (although that may be mere personal prejudice on my part), then your entire continuity is cheapened in the long term along with its credibility, whatever the short term benefits in terms of sales might be. When this happens, your only recourse is to greater acts of debasement in order to attract reader attention, more deaths to appease the arena crowd element in the fan marketplace, eventually degenerating into a geek show.”
Does anyone really think he’d enjoyed today’s superhero comics if only he gave them a fair shake?
Wow … that is prescience right there.
Though now I’m going to completely discredit myself by acknowledging that I kinda liked Secret Wars (at least the first one).
Good post. I think the fact that Alan Moore is such an oddity on a personal level makes it easier for the fans to dismiss his complaints.
I don’t think I read the whole Secret Wars…but I think, contra Moore, that there was something charming in its banality, especially in retrospect. None of this “world’s will live, world’s will die” crap — the big excitement is Spidey gets a new costume. Sort of the last gasp of silver age goofiness…
Hey Robert! Nice to see you here again (and it’s good to have you commenting again too, Pallas!)
I think it’s definitely the case that Moore’s oddness makes him an easy target — which says something awfully embarrassing about the provincialism of comics fans. Because as far as creative people go, he’s actually not all that weird in the scheme of things….
Enjoyable and well-argued commentary on it all, Noah.
Though considering that Alan Moore has for many years now maintained that words and writing are a type of magic, why shouldn’t he consider himself a wizard? There’s more to magic* than spectacular Harry Potter-type stunts.
One of the definitions at dictionary.com goes, “the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature.”
With qualities such as human emotions and empathy considered part of the forces of nature, could not Harriet Beecher Stowe’s “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” be considered to have produced the desired effect of making the horrors of slavery, plight of its victims vividly felt by millions – thus boosting the cause of abolition – through the “magic” of fiction?
Anyway, agree or disagree (before we get in a lengthy argument here), Moore’s certainly been richly inspired by magic: masterpieces such as “From Hell,” “Snakes and Ladders,” “The Birth Caul,” or “Promethea” (a bit too info-dense for me to get into, alas, so cannot attest to its quality) come to mind.
About his promises to quit comics, I’m hoping it’s just anger speaking hyperbolically. Though the works are not as prominent, he continues creating them: an uncannily accurate recapturing of the underground comics sensibility in a mini featured in a recent “Dodgem Logic,” which he very nicely illustrated (he can be a very able artist given enough time to work); some sinister delvings into Lovecrafteana, “The Courtyard” and the current “Neonomicon” series. (I just read the second issue last night, and it featured one of the most unsettling, downright terrifying sequences I’ve ever seen in comics. Hope to post more about it on the TCJ message board.)
———————
Noah Berlatsky says:
…I think it’s definitely the case that Moore’s oddness makes him an easy target — which says something awfully embarrassing about the provincialism of comics fans. Because as far as creative people go, he’s actually not all that weird in the scheme of things….
———————
Quite agree! Not to mention, he doesn’t exactly get into the “team comics” spirit, does he?
I do think he’s too harsh to friends/collaborators who cross lines they may not even think that “uncrossable.” Bill Wray mournfully told on the TCJ message board how his swipe of a Jack Davis figure from “Mad” in Wray’s brilliant rendering of Moore’s “Come On Down” in “Taboo” #1, was enough to have Moore forever cut off contact with him…
*Or “magick,” as both publicity-seeking hambone and serious occultist Alistair Crowley dubbed the non-stage-illusions kind. On the vein of “writing as magic,” consider the business about how knowing one’s true name is supposed to give a malevolent magician power over you; “in the beginning was the word”; etc…
Hey Mike. The way he treats personal relationship are obviously odd, and in some ways hard to get behind. On the other hand…he did sign over to Dave Gibbons and David Lloyd millions of dollars each, which as bizarrely generous as some of his other actions seem bizarrely ungenerous….
Yes; who among us would, for the sake of our lofty principles, give up all that cash and credit?
(Not me…!)
Mike Hunter:
“I do think he’s too harsh to friends/collaborators who cross lines they may not even think that “uncrossable.” Bill Wray mournfully told on the TCJ message board how his swipe of a Jack Davis figure from “Mad” in Wray’s brilliant rendering of Moore’s “Come On Down” in “Taboo” #1, was enough to have Moore forever cut off contact with him…”
Moore does this all the time; he has one of those ‘you’re dead to me’ lists engraved in his head. Steve Bissette, DC comics, David Lloyd and now Dave Gibbon are on that list.
Whatever their respective demerits– the occupiers of a “dead to me” list would be justified in stating that such an approach to human relations is stupid and puerile.
Steve Bissette was cut off because he told the truth about Moore’s fucking up ‘1963’ in his Comics Journal interview.
Gibbons is cut off because a)he didn’t phone to thank Moore for his share of the Watchmen movie money– a fair reason, though reflecting as badly on Moore as on Gibbons; and b) because he had the insolence to have phoned Moore about a deal on the ownership of Watchmen.
Well, for fuck’s sake, Gibbons is the *co-creator* of Watchmen! Of course the only ethical thing he could do was to phone Moore!
Moore’s paranoia is out of control. And there are aspects of history he massages; for example, he sold the movie rights to ‘The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen’ before any publisher was involved, indeed before an artist was chosen– the original artist envisaged was Hughes!
Any trouble Moore had with the LOEG movie has nothing to do with DC.
Over 20 ye
aargh effing WordPress stupidity cut me off!
Over 20 years ago, I transcribed and translated a Moore interview for the French fanzine Scarce. One thing I noted– Moore tends to say the same thing three or more times; ‘That comic was shit; It was shit, mate. It was a shitty comic. That comic, it was shit’…etc, etc. He has the hectoring glibness of a typical bully.
That said, I’m his biggest faaaaaaaannn….!!!
oh , and Noah: “millions of dollars each”????
No.
Well, he signed over his half of the movie royalties, right? I’d think that would be a sizable amount of money — though I don’t know how much exactly.
Interesting stuff. One nit to pick, though:
Why is polyamory listed amongst his unpleasant weirdnesses? Have I just accidentally discovered that Noah Berlatsky is into societally-enforced monogamy, or…?
Obviously, poly relationships only work for some people and only under some circumstances, and Alan Moore would no doubt be a difficult person to be in -any- kind of relationship with. That doesn’t mean that being in a poly situation is something to list as bad behavior, though.
Alex wrote:
“Steve Bissette was cut off because he told the truth about Moore’s fucking up ’1963? in his Comics Journal interview.”
Huh? Bissette claims he has no idea what about the interview pissed off Moore, or why Moore was angry at him:
http://www.avclub.com/articles/steve-bissette,30751/
I haven’t read the comic journal interview, but Eddie Campbell blogged about it and said he didn’t know what the reason for the falling out was, but that there was a lot of stress over Bissette doing a poor job of publishing From Hell, which was hurting Moore and Campbell financially.
“Well, he signed over his half of the movie royalties, right? I’d think that would be a sizable amount of money — though I don’t know how much exactly”
And Gibbons came back and asked Moore to sign over a blessing for Watchmen II, probably so Gibbons could make a ton of money. I can see how Moore might think that was ungrateful of him, though I can also see how Gibbons may feel abused by Moore, since he co-created the book and may feel he should have the right to monetize it however he wants.
Though, we have no idea how much money the Watchmen royalties were worth)
Hey Anja. I think the polyamory is seen as weird, and it’s certainly part of being a hippie (dirty or otherwise). It’s not something I personally have a problem with though. In fact, I’m pretty certain that Moore’s polyamorous interests are connected to his strong pro-gay rights beliefs, which I think are among the (many) admirable aspects of his writing.
Alex B: what does it matter what he does with his friendships? Or if he’s mean to people? He has a legitimate grievance with DC, no amount of “but he’s a jerk” is going to change that.
Fan entitlement is a disease. It’s a sickness of the mind. Alan Moore is a writer, not your son. Not your father. Not your friend. Not yourself. The gossip and chatter is entertaining but a lot of comic readers get it twisted up with the work itself.
His personal relationships have nothing at all to do with the concerns of his professional grievances.
‘Well, for fuck’s sake, Gibbons is the *co-creator* of Watchmen! Of course the only ethical thing he could do was to phone Moore!”
One more point, Gibbons phoned to ask Moore to sign over rights (or a blessing) to DC. Moore had previously asked Gibbons never to speak to him about Watchmen again.
Gibbons should have at least known the risks when he called.
The really *weird* thing about the Watchmen thing is that Moore speculated recently that he might actually *own* more of Watchmen than he previously thought:
“Yeah, it was a bit of a surprise. But thinking about it, I don’t know. I mean, like they made a lot of trouble for themselves with their laxity on the contracts on the WATCHMEN film, say…
‘ And so I would imagine that given our understanding of the industry standards during that time, and given the fact that, as I say, DC’s contractual stuff sometimes seems to be a bit shaky. So there may be… I mean, it’s occurred to me that I could possibly get a lawyer to look into this. There may be some problem with the contract, or some potential problem that may require my actual signature saying it’s okay to go ahead with these prequels and sequels. It might be that they can’t just do this. It may be that… it would seem that if they had gone out of their way to try and tempt me with worn-out rights to a property that was mine anyway, or sums of money… they’re offering me a million or two million, then I would imagine that what was potentially on offer to them would be higher by a couple of factors, maybe two or three factors, who knows? It could be a huge amount. So this would seem to explain their apparent desperate need to get me to put my signature upon something, which I’m not inclined to do”
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2010/09/09/alan-moore-speaks-watchmen-2-to-adi-tantimedh/
So, apparently he’s too much of a hippie to talk to a lawyer about a contract for a property worth millions of dollars.
Noah,
The most frustrating thing about being a writer is that sometimes people don’t read what you’ve written, but just glance over it and form a general impression, based largely on their experiences with OTHER people, and then just make up whatever most comfortably fills in the blanks. I usually get a cue this is going to happen when people stick a period after my name.
I feel like Tom’s initial response to me did that, though I was satisfied with the second exchange. You’re doing better, but you still missed a few points.
In the very first sentence of mine that you quoted, I said that no one should say Alan Moore is crazy. So I really don’t know where you’re getting that I suggest Alan Moore is crazy.
I do not EXPECT creative people to be beacons of propriety, although many are. When they are, they should be lauded for it. When they are not, they should be mocked at the very least. This feels like basic logic to me, so I’m a bit surprised to be arguing the point twice. (I guess I could just not comment, but let’s not talk crazy.)
I did say this is not how a creative person should conduct himself in public. Your response was to bring up examples of other creative people who’ve conducted themselves in a manner far worse. I… don’t know what to take from that, exactly. Are you arguing that Kanye West is conducting himself in a proper manner? That he should not be mocked? That can’t be what you meant. But if it isn’t, then I don’t know what you think I’M saying.
The weakest spot in my own arguments is probably the bit about companies, and I’m a bit sorry I dragged that one in there. Not that I recant, but it’s a minority opinion and a side issue. In brief, I consider companies even more vulnerable to ambition, money and fame than individuals, but because they’re artificial constructs wherein blame is often shifted, I can’t bring myself to hold them accountable the way I do individuals. I absolve them the way I absolve piranha: it’s only remarkable when they DON’T devour you. There are individuals at companies whom I trust, and that’s all.
The bit about “the ultimate insidery comics insult” is closer to the mark. But it is something I care about, not something I just picked to manipulate you. It troubles me to see someone I admired lapse into this sort of sloppy thinking and, yes, crankishness.
See, if only Moore would say, “I’m done with that world, I don’t want any part of it, so I can’t speak to what’s going on in it now because I don’t know the first thing about it any more,” then I would understand. I also understand when people give comics a fair try and just don’t like them. It’s not wrong not to like things. It’s not wrong to avoid things you don’t like. It is wrong to celebrate ignorance, especially if it’s your own.
Noah, you and Tom both seem to be aiming your concluding arguments at a certain species of fanboy who cares only about what does and doesn’t justify his narrow reading list. And that’s fine, but I’m not that guy. If he’s who you really want to talk to, then let me get out of the way.
I’m a guy who’s interested in art and creativity, and doesn’t like being told that I shouldn’t translate my concerns into rambling screeds like this one… or, as is more likely with me, dumb jokes.
Geez, why are people getting so damned exercised about what he’s saying in interviews. They don’t know him or the others personally, and they don’t have to deal with him professionally, so why should they care?
If you like his work, read it; if you don’t, don’t. That’s all that should matter. I’ve met more than a few professional creators in comics and other fields. A lot of people whose work I think the world of are jerks, and there are a lot of really sweet people whose stuff is just terrible. Why people feel there should be a connection between the strength of creators’ work and their agreeability as people makes no sense to me.
These industry soap operas are entertaining to read about, but if it’s not your fight, why take sides? It’s not relevant to your life.
Noah – Thanks for clearing that one up.
From a theoretical perspective, taking a stand against societally-enforced monogamy and standing up against heterosexism and oppression of queer and gender-variant people are certainly deeply connected, if not one and the same. It’s not coincidental that queer folks and allies are generally more open to non-monogamous relationship structures than the rest of the populace; once one is forced into a position counter to the dominant narrative, one starts to question the rest of that narrative, and not just the parts that one has most directly clashed with. This helps in explaining the link between the lesbian community here in the States (and elsewhere) and feminism, as well.
Of course, nonmonogamy certainly is part of hippie culture as well, as is “magick” – Oberon Zell Ravenheart/Church of All Worlds, anyone? How’s about a bit of Starhawk to chase that down? These things are all connected to some degree or another.
Hey T. I don’t think Kanye conducts himself especially well. My point is just that by singling out “creative people’ in particular you seem to suggest that there’s some higher standard they should be expected to hold. You also talked in your post about holding them up as role models. Given the way creative people actually act in the real world, both of those positions seem silly to me.
Obviously, no one’s going to cop to holding to the kind of fannishness Tom and I are talking about. I don’t know what else to call it when you claim it’s actually irrational or at all odd to sneer at comics or films for whatever reason, whether you’ve seen them or not. People shoot the shit about art; it’s one of the things art’s there for. To look down on people who do that casually rather than with a more thoroughgoing emotional investment seems blinkered.
” It is wrong to celebrate ignorance, especially if it’s your own.”
Not when it’s ignorance about stuff that doesn’t matter very much. And it’s bizarre to me that you feel he’s celebrating it. He doesn’t boast about not having read those things in the interview, and he says at various points, “this is my opinion.” I just don’t see what the big deal is.
I think your comments about coporations aren’t as much of a minority opinion as all that. I think they are misguided, though. Corporations don’t exist; they’re a fiction. The only ones who buy and sell and make deals are people. If they use the corporate identity to allow themselves to be bastards, that doesn’t let them off the hook, and it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be censured. Your pragmatic this-is-the-way-the-world-is stance seems like just basically an excuse to ignore bad behavior and, in this case, mock the person who’s been fucked over rather than the people who did the fucking. I find that stance pretty much reprehensible.
I wonder if I can get away with selling an “Alan Moore was right” t-shirt?
I’m actually in general agreement with most of your paragraph about the nature of corporations, and certainly about the bastards who sometimes populate them, so it’s odd that we come to such different conclusions.
“Mock the person who’s been fucked over rather than the people who did the fucking?” What, we have to choose? One of the reasons I looked up to Moore for a long time was that he DID walk away from DC and built his career anew, setting an example for others to follow.
It’s reasonable to call me idealistic about people and pragmatic or pessimistic about corporations. To my mind, a better world starts with people. We change one mind at a time.
I do believe creative people should follow a certain standard of behavior, no matter what they actually do in practice. I understand and accept that you find this position silly, but I honestly have trouble seeing why. It doesn’t seem far removed from the concept of specialized etiquette.
A lot of people do shoot the shit about art. They’re not in the position Alan Moore is in.
If you’re not seeing what I’m seeing in the interview itself, then fair enough, but I’m not impressed with your theories about my motives. I’m a fan, yes, who writes a series called FANS. Two years ago, I still liked Moore enough to write in a tribute to his then-current persona, and he wasn’t exactly cozy with mainstream comics at that point.
I’m not asking Moore to validate my reading list or agree with my opinions. I’m just asking for dignity. And if that seems like a silly request, then so be it.
dignity, always dignity…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulAxNyRXrlY
Pallas:
“I haven’t read the comic journal interview, but Eddie Campbell blogged about it and said he didn’t know what the reason for the falling out was, but that there was a lot of stress over Bissette doing a poor job of publishing From Hell, which was hurting Moore and Campbell financially.”
Bissette was (justifiably, to my mind) angry and disappointed that neither Moore nor Campbell ever acknowledged his role in bringing about From Hell.
That serial also helped sink Bissette’s anthology Taboo, which was repeatedly held up for From Hell.
And it’s well-known that Moore cut off all contact with Bissette as a direct consequence of his going on the record about ‘1963’. Moore’s betrayal in that case echoes down to today. Rick Veitch found a publisher willing to reprint 1963. Moore vetoed it.
He does that a lot. One reason Alan Davis won’t work with Moore is that the latter, for decades, refused to allow Marvel to reprint their ‘Captain Britain’ stories. The old dog-in-the-manger attitude.
Darryl Ayo:
“Fan entitlement is a disease. It’s a sickness of the mind. Alan Moore is a writer, not your son. Not your father. Not your friend. Not yourself. The gossip and chatter is entertaining but a lot of comic readers get it twisted up with the work itself.”
This sort of insult is self-defeating, Darryl. Moore himself uses the ‘gossip and chatter’ of fandom to his own ends. Note that he’s profligate with the interviews denouncing DC, which company has maintained a dignified silence. If Moore chooses to use the media to promote his views, as he does, then it’s legitimate for others– such as me — to critique these views, despite the efforts of uncritical fanboys like Darryl Ayo to silence me.
BTW, Darryl, you were happy enough to publish me without forking over a penny in BAM, so it’s a bit funny to see you lecturing me about publisher/artist relations.
——————–
T Campbell says:
…The most frustrating thing about being a writer is that sometimes people don’t read what you’ve written, but just glance over it and form a general impression, based largely on their experiences with OTHER people, and then just make up whatever most comfortably fills in the blanks. …
——————–
Too true! And, “The most frustrating thing about being a human being is that sometimes people don’t take a close look at who you are, but just glance over you and form a general impression…”
———————
Anja Flower says:
…It’s not coincidental that queer folks and allies are generally more open to non-monogamous relationship structures than the rest of the populace…
———————-
Where skepticism about such comes in is, how much of this theorizing about the splendidness of “polyamory” comes in because guys want to have an enlightened-sounding justification for “dipping their wicks” in as many available orifices as possible?
(To angry spouse): “I’m not a cheating louse, sweetheart, I just don’t believe that *love* should be constrained by narrow, bourgeois societal parameters…”
For certain, Moore is a cranky cuss. In ancient times, he’d have been a prophet raving away in the wilderness, or one of those – as a group – notoriously hard-to-live-with, condemnatory saints.
Yet, he’s a genius artistically, who’s co-created a series of masterpieces and is still crankin’ away, and (not that the competition is that impressive, admittedly) likely the Smartest Man In Comics…
———————
Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world
Like a Colossus, and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs and peep about
To find ourselves dishonourable graves.
———————-
–Julius Caesar, Act I, Scene 2
Alex wrote:
“That serial also helped sink Bissette’s anthology Taboo, which was repeatedly held up for From Hell.”
Eddie Campbell seems to indicate it was taboo holding up From Hell:
“Steve always bristled when I would write that about Taboo, but these are the statistics: #1 Nov ’88, #2 Sept ’89, #3 Mar ’90, #4 Feb ’91, #5 Jan ’92, #6 July ’92, #7 late ’92. There aren’t as many as twelve months between any two issues, but nor is there more than one issue per calendar year in the four years ’88, ’89, ’90, ’91. Watchmen came out more or less monthly and was packed together two years after being launched. From Hell, its follow-up, had the potential to make waves in the world but it was being held back by this serialization arrangement.”
Look, I don’t know what happened, but what you are writing contradicts Campbell’s account.
Great post and great discussion!
I was fortunate enough to do a podcast interview with Moore for a local Brooklyn-based magazine, listen to that here: http://bit.ly/dlLIaM
During the interview I asked him specifically how he feels that whenever he comes out to do an interview, he’s painted in a negative light.
He’s an interesting and complex creator. Sometimes brilliant, sometimes not, but he pushes and I think that’s important.
“Note that he’s profligate with the interviews denouncing DC, which company has maintained a dignified silence.”
Or you could see it as a contemptuous silence. They own his creation and have created a hideous version of it, from which they reap lots of money. As Tom points out, their handling of the ABC thing was…well, not dignified. They have a long history of screwing creators, and of screwing Moore. I have difficulty believing you’re defending them, no matter what your issues with the grand wizard.
T Campbell — I think if I replied again I’d just be repeating myself, and it seems only fair to let you have the last licks. Thanks for replying, and for doing so with such grace. Hope to see you around these parts again.
I agree DC has done disgraceful things, but sometimes Moore indulges in sheer paranoia. When DC offers work to Steve Moore Alan thinks it’s to get at him, and when DC withholds work from Steve Moore Alan thinks it’s to get at him. Come on!
“They own his creation and have created a hideous version of it”…I’m not sure what you’re referring to, here.
I’m referring to the watchmen movie.
I’d agree that he sounds a little paranoid…but just because you’re paranoid don’t mean they’re not after you. I think Tom points out that after the ABC thing, he’s at least somewhat justified in thinking they’re out to poison his water. And they *have* actually cheated him in underhanded ways, repeatedly. As conspiracy theories go, it’s a lot less ridiculous than some.
Alex: I’m an uncritical fanboy? Quit while you’re ahead, you don’t know me.
Look. All I’m saying is that Moore is a writer, not your personal hero. If he’s a jerk, then a jerk he is. It’s not my business if he’s mean to his friends or former-friends. I don’t care. I don’t care for the fan-entitlement on behalf of people howling with rage that Moore insulted a bunch of people they don’t know personally. It’s senseless. It’s his life. Interviewers ask him for his opinion, he gave it. Now the fanboys are mad and say that he shouldn’t have said what he felt. That’s madness.
And “BTW,” what are you talking about? I didn’t publish BAM. I wasn’t involved in BAM’s creation or publication on ANY level. All I did was let the dudes who did publish it take my message-board post to use for their forward. And I guess they derrived the title from that. And as I recall, it was all ironic because my message-board-“book forward” was critical of the whole idea. Honestly, I don’t even have a copy of that book. I’ve never even seen one.
Is this what people say about me? That I owe them something from BAM? You got the wrong man, cousin. Talk to…I guess it’s Ian or somebody?
I find it deeply upsetting that people like you have been walking around for years, mad at me for something that I had next-to-nothing to do with. Maybe you have me confused with Ian or Hunter or somebody?
Hello, Noah et al–long-time listener, first-time caller.
I’m not sure how relevant this is to the discussion at hand, but last night, I re-read my Hellboy: Wake the Devil book for the first time in years. In his introduction, Alan Moore says nice things about Mignola, Seth, Chris Ware, and Michael Allred. I believe he also wrote an introduction to Gary Spencer Millidge’s Strangehaven at one point.
So, yeah, he is aware of modern comic-makers.
With regard to his apparent distaste for the industry’s current talent, I always assumed he’d meant the corporate world of DC/Marvel. Are there any writers (save for possibly Grant M.) that many people would find comparable to Moore?
Even though Allred is doing some sort of Vertigo book, I doubt any of those creators whose work Moore has lauded would ever write Return of Back to Watchmen Again for DC, but that may be neither here nor there.
Apologies for the terrible sentence structure above. This is what happens when one decides to post as one’s lunch hour ends.
Hey Erik. Eric B (if he’s reading) would have a better sense than I do of what exactly Moore has and has not read, but yeah, my sense is that he’s very interested in a broad range of creators, including people like Chris Ware who aren’t usually thought of as important influences in a mainstream context.
Tom S. mentioned in passing that Moore doesn’t seem to keep up with superhero stuff, which may or may not be the case (but certainly seems possible.)
Moore’s read all that stuff…and often namechecks and lists favorite creators, even fairly recently. He’s always been in love with Los Bros Hernandez, for instance…talks at some length about Howard Chaykin. He’s taken some potshots at contemporary autobio independents at times…but he’s also been complimentary of many…He’s also almost always complimentary toward his co-creators while working with them…and even for some or many years afterward. At some point, the waters often get poisoned over business…but he almost never attacks his cocreators on the level of creativity. Frank Miller’s a good example of someone he used to praise with regularity (even wrote a good essay about his work), but more recently has made negative comments about Miller’s political views and his more recent projects. Moore claims to have largely stopped reading comics within the last five years or so (this is off the top of my head, so I may have the chronology wrong)…but until fairly recently he was an omnivorous comics reader…more independent than mainstream, but still a big (yes) “fan.” Mort Weisinger-era Superman was a big favorite for him, Kurtzman, Kirby (and Lee to a lesser degree), Eisner, Winsor McCay, Frank King, Ditko…all the big Anglo/American names, really…and many more.
My sense of his complete turn away from mainstream comics has more to do with what it did to him than with the relative quality of the material, which, frankly, has often been crap from the beginning. In the mid-90’s, Moore was writing Spawn for a paycheck–hardly the apex of comics’ aesthetic achievements (as Moore would no doubt admit–though I think his Spawn stories are good fun).
As for DC’s purchase of Wildstorm…It is creepy, but Moore could have backed out easily before anything had been published (or, at least very little). He has aired noble reasons for his decision to soldier on despite the corporate stalking…but at that time working for DC didn’t bother him enough for him to stop doing it.
DC’s the “bad guy” in this scenario…I certainly agree with that….but Moore’s behavior is not exactly above reproach. Should we expect it to be, probably not…but to say people are angry at him for not being a fan seems a bit too simplistic to me. For one thing, his own fannishness helped define his early successes. He made his name and money on fans and on being a fan… There’s something a bit churlish about wholeheartedly rejecting that ethos.
I also think the notion that fanboys are unaware of the silliness of their own practices…and of the generally moribund state of the mainstream industry, is inaccurate. Part of being a fan of mainstream comics is to acknowledge that, complain, and soldier on anyway in the hopes of better times/material (as unlikely as that may be).
Hey Eric. Thanks!
I don’t think fannishness is evil in all instances (or even just in general). I do think it’s implicated in the particular ways Moore has been screwed over, and certainly in the less savory practices of the mainstream companies. And I think I suggested in the piece that the point of fannishness is to see that things suck…but carry on anyway. Moore’s sin here is not to dislike the comics, but not to even bother reading them, yes?
Also…just because Moore has been a fan in the past doesn’t mean that he couldn’t be rejecting that ethos now. Thus the sense of betrayal which Campbell and others express.
@ Darryl:
” I don’t care for the fan-entitlement on behalf of people howling with rage that Moore insulted a bunch of people they don’t know personally.”
I know Dave Gibbons personally, okay? And have since 1975. Fan-entitlement, my ass.
Incidentally, your above sentence is illiterate and illogical. You should only use expressions like “on behalf of” if you understand what they mean.
Darryl:
“And “BTW,” what are you talking about? I didn’t publish BAM. I wasn’t involved in BAM’s creation or publication on ANY level. All I did was let the dudes who did publish it take my message-board post to use for their forward. And I guess they derrived the title from that. And as I recall, it was all ironic because my message-board-”book forward” was critical of the whole idea. Honestly, I don’t even have a copy of that book. I’ve never even seen one.
Is this what people say about me? That I owe them something from BAM? You got the wrong man, cousin. Talk to…I guess it’s Ian or somebody?
I find it deeply upsetting that people like you have been walking around for years, mad at me for something that I had next-to-nothing to do with. Maybe you have me confused with Ian or Hunter or somebody?”
Your name is on the goddam contract I signed. If Ian or Hunter wrongfully put your name on the contract, then I advise YOU to contact them toot sweet. And I’m not mad at anyone over BAM.
*********************
One point: Moore in that interview is not criticising current scripters or saying they are bad.
He’s merely making a logical point in his argument with DC: the company said they’d put top people on the proposed new Watchmen comics. Moore said in effect, if they’re top people then why don’t they produce the original 21st century equivalent of Watchmen?
He’s underlining that DC is not interested in original work or excellence, but solely in milking a franchise.
Daryl and Alex, if you guys have business issues, maybe you should contact each other about them? I don’t know that this thread is the best place to hash them out….
It’s not an issue.
But I don’t like to be flamed so insultingly and ignorantly by someone who was involved in a publishing fiasco concerning me, and then denies it.
There’s a word for that sort of behavior.
—————–
Noah Berlatsky says:
“Note that he’s profligate with the interviews denouncing DC, which company has maintained a dignified silence.”
Or you could see it as a contemptuous silence…
——————–
Some other possibilities for DC’s behavior:
– A “legally non-actionable” silence (Were DC to come right out and accuse Moore of this and that, or call him a liar and his charges hogwash, they’d be opening themselves up to legal action, which Big Corporations are loath to. Just ’cause Moore’s not been the type to get a lawyer and “do an Ellison” before doesn’t mean he might not decide to in the future.)
– A “don’t burn your bridges behind you” silence (Maybe some in DC* still have the unlikely hope that Moore could be lured into doing some more work for them, and don’t wish to contribute to the bad blood)
*Surely some there – while not wishing to sink their careers by speaking out – were appalled at the incredibly stupid and short-sighted (“Let’s screw the creator of one of our most exciting, popular, and trailblazing titles out of a few merchandising bucks! What could go wrong?“) way this great, exciting talent was treated.
Buchet – Moore himself uses the ‘gossip and chatter’ of fandom to his own ends. Note that he’s profligate with the interviews denouncing DC, which company has maintained a dignified silence. If Moore chooses to use the media to promote his views,
Moore has been ripped off. DC wants to exploit his property. Let me know when Moore rips off something that DC owns. The bottom line is that if you create something, it should be yours, not the corporations.
This is quoted from the Comics Reporter link-
T. Campbell- but the reason comics people care about Moore’s behavior in the first place is that his talent and career have made him a role model. And when role models fail, we should pay attention, because what happened to them could happen to us.
No, the reason people have interest in him is that he’s made a few half decent books. And he’s an interesting guy. The only grace he’s fallen from is the one you had in your mind.
T. Campbell- Regarding your concluding argument that “history” and his “lamentable experience” justifies Moore’s ever-increasing irrationality, I’ve never entirely understood the comics community’s addiction to tales of corporate betrayal.
(insert eye rolls)
You’re talking from a privileged point of view. It’s only in recent times that artists have been able to own their works in the mainstream comic world. Before that, if one wanted some bread the only game in town were the corporate companies.
While I’ve never had direct contact with Alan, I know quite a few people who get along with him well and find him very genial. As far as I know, though, they generally don’t suggest he let DC produce new Watchmen material, and that probably helps.
Fact is, Alan’s not wrong. He’s doing what suits him best, and he has a right to. When he’s interviewed, he explains himself but as far as I can tell he’s not producing any manifestos. He doesn’t want more Watchmen stories, he has the right to prevent them and he’s exercising that right. Good for him. Like everyone else, he’s under no obligation to do what someone else wants just because they want him to, and he’s not doing anything his contract doesn’t allow him to do.
Having a perspective that doesn’t match yours doesn’t make someone else crazy, and unless one’s ego for some reason teeters on the necessity that Alan Moore agree with them in all things, who cares that Alan now dismisses much of his output? Many artists are far more critical of their works than “end-users” are. No one else is obligated to dismiss those same works just because Alan chooses to. Artists aren’t always their own best critics; that’s what critical analysis is for. Alan seems to be dissing Grant Morrison?! Jeez, these guys have pretty publicly been at each other’s throats for years, and, in any case, there’s no code of conduct for comics creators. Some people don’t like each other. So what? Welcome to life, and writing or drawing comic books in and of itself certainly doesn’t raise anyone to a higher state of being. Alan doesn’t read many comics publishes today? Hell, most comics creators don’t read a lot of comics published today. Many comics creators have NEVER read many comics published contemporaneously with their work. When I began writing at Marvel, it was quite commonplace for comics creators to boast they didn’t read other people’s work.
So I think, Noah, that your assessment of Alan’s situation is pretty much on the money, though I would add fandom has always “understood” a sort of phantom quid pro quo – “We support your work, you support our biases” – and gotten testy when talents feel no obligation to play by that rule. (I suspect it goes back to the rise of superhero fandom alongside the rise of Stan Lee, whose Bullpen Bulletin Pages frequently lied that “You are the REAL editor of our comics,” and I suspect that’s the real wellspring of what you call “fan entitlement.”) Since the fluidity of the early ’90s, when talents jumped ship for richer opportunities at the drop of a hat, corporate comics have largely promoted the property over the talent, except where it suited, and reinforced the notion in new crops of readers that it’s the song, not the singer. That it’s now standard in superhero comics for new talents to come onto a property and “shake up the status quo” by killing and/or replacing a hero, sending him on long strolls around the world, changing the costume, support cast, milieu, and in many cases effectively creating a whole new character while automatically surrendering that character to corporate control, Alan’s reluctance to let DC declare open season on Watchmen is understandable on aesthetic grounds, even if his other conflicts with them didn’t exist, and money isn’t always the pivotal factor in these decisions. But he’s not wrong that modern superhero comics are largely an exercise in beating dead horses; the only real question for fans is how they like their horsemeat prepared and served. But that’s not so much a condemnation of superhero comics as a simple recognition of reality.
Just one thing, Noah: dirty? If anything, Alan is a very clean hippie. Don’t forget fandom is rife with literalists too.
Thanks for your thoughts, Steven.
I should state categorically that I have no personal knowledge of Alan Moore’s hygiene or lack thereof.
“Tom S. mentioned in passing that Moore doesn’t seem to keep up with superhero stuff, which may or may not be the case (but certainly seems possible.)”
This interview is informative:
http://www.mania.com/alan-moore-reflects-marvelman-part-2_article_117529.html
Moore said:
“Yeah, I mean, I haven’t read a book from any of the mainstream companies in years. I’ve read a couple of comics over the last couple of years. But, I’ve certainly not read anything from DC or Marvel, just because I’ve got such a strong aversion to seeing those logos on anything—nor do I have a collection of DC or Marvel comics. ”
Moore also said he thinks superhero comics are worse these days:
“The Silver Age, as far as I’m concerned was over by 1969, as I remember it. I was talking to Kevin O’Neill about this the other day. The ‘70s was kind of the mud age. In the early ‘70s, there were still some experiments being tried, but I remember it as a very grim period. There were perhaps a couple of books that I was interested in, but everything else seemed to be a mess. I was mostly reading underground comics during that period, or 2000 AD. But, the American comics of that period seemed very dull and seemed to have lost their way. There were exceptions, but overall it was a very lifeless, tepid scene. That was what Marvelman was rebelling against. It was just trying to give superhero comics a new lease on life. But, I’ve always been very, very affectionate towards the comics of the 1960s and before. That was a different age. For one thing, the people drawing and writing weren’t fans. They were often professional writers who happened to be making a living in comics. They hadn’t got this huge wealth of character continuity. They could use their imagination. Then, they were replaced in the middle ‘60s by basically fan-writers, some of whom were pretty good. But, it began a fairly incestuous process that meant that it was fans writing for fans who would be the next generation of creators. And, it was all getting very specific and obsessive. A lot of the fun seemed to have gone out of it. Even in my early work, when I was at DC—when I handled Superman—it’s difficult to see anything but love for the Silver Age and the often silly comic book concepts that typified that era. I’d got everything in there—Krypto and Bizarro—all of those things that I had loved, because they seem to me to be just full of imagination and energy. They were wonderful, strange ideas. And, in subsequent work, like with ABC, we were trying to be very progressive, but at the same time we were harking back to a lot of the things about comics of the past that we thought were really good, and shouldn’t have been thrown out with the trash quite so readily. I suppose the thing to say about Marvelman (and later, with Watchmen), is that these books were not meant as the Bible. They were ways in which the superhero could be handled. They weren’t the only way. They weren’t meant as a Bible or a jail sentence. We were trying to have fun.
“
I may be wrong about this…but, in fact, doesn’t DC have the right to publish Watchmen sequels if they want to? They own the property by contract.
I think they haven’t done so precisely because they’re holding out hope that one day, they may lure Moore back into the fold (or at least they believed that at one time…it seems preposterous at this stage). The talk of “Watchmen II” thus comes about when they figure all bridges have already been burned, so they might as well cash in. The hopes of getting Moore’s blessing via Gibbons (if that really happened the way Moore says), seems more like PR on their part. If they can get the blessing, there’s “rapprochement” between the two parties, headlines in the industry, and good PR. If they don’t, they can try to look like the “bigger man” by offering rights back to Moore–and try to make Moore look bad (refusing his own properties just to “get back” at DC). Perhaps this has “worked” to some degree with whatever Moore-bashing there may be out there…but in the long run, I think it’s pretty transparent and not in good faith…again, assuming the general narrative is true.
Overall, I think the situation is sad, because Moore has moved away from comics (not completely, but still…) and he’s still one of the best creators out there…esp. in the field of pulp/genre stories. While I didn’t really like Black Dossier, I thought Century looked pretty good at the beginning…and Neonomicon actually seems pretty awesome after the 1 issue I read. Dodgem Logic, on the other hand, is a chore to get through—and his novel, while interesting, isn’t really among the best novels I’ve read. Some of his comics do hold that distinction. (I did like the last part of the “Unearthing” narrative, the Liavek story he did…and (to a lesser degree), “The Courtyard”–so, his prose certainly isn’t chopped liver). In the end, I think he’s a comics writer dabbling in other things…and I kind of miss the days of 2-3 Moore comics on a monthly basis, regardless of what those comics might be.
“I may be wrong about this…but, in fact, doesn’t DC have the right to publish Watchmen sequels if they want to? They own the property by contract. ”
Eric, none of us have seen the contract.
Moore speculates in that bit I quoted above that there might be a problem with the Watchmen contract that DC only realized recently. Moore gives no indication he’s ever spoken to a lawyer about it. He seems pretty clueless about legal details.
DC’s behavior is rather bizarre, really. Maybe they are just afraid of bad PR if they do a Watchmen sequel without Moore’s blessing. I don’t know.
Right, bad PR I think is the concern.
One more thing about the original post: The notion that the superhero properties shift more copies than big-name writer/artists is not really so much true anymore. Books Moore writes sell, regardless of who is in them, whereas Superman’s sales, for instance, fluctuate pretty widely depending on the creative time. Grant Morrison’s Superman sells, but many other creators, not so much. A Moore Superman book would be huge…so the combo is obviously even more attractive, but comics sales actually do tend to be driven by creative team–at least to some degree.
Sure. But at the same time, the mainstream has become ever more crossover driven…and it’s not like they’ve figured out how to successfully shift to, say, new characters or new properties. The audience is older and more aware of creators…but it’s still awfully focused on characters who are 30-70 years old.
A few more thoughts:
While Moore rejects “fannishness” now, he was quite a big fan-type himself back in the day: encyclopedic knowledge of Superman-related arcana, having Superman himself as a moral role-model…
When Moore was buddies with DC, warm and friendly with Julius Schwartz, surely he knew about how Siegel and Schuster got screwed by DC, right? I wonder if the degree of his anger when it came to be his turn was because he’d thought all that corporate malfeasance was long past, and he realized he was a fool to have believed it.
——————-
Siegfried says:
…The bottom line is that if you create something, it should be yours, not the corporations.
——————–
Much as I hate to defend corporations, what if it’s “work for hire”? Whether some comics characters created in a title you’ve been hired to work on, or a company’s R&D technician coming up with a valuable new product or process while working “on the clock,” the company owns them. The corporation is even legally the “author”…
Maybe you’re using “should” as a moral ideal rather than a legal reality, But even then, many people – creative folks and scientists – would rather get a steady paycheck, even with the drawback that if – if – they might end up creating a “cash cow,” it won’t belong to them.
get a life you nerds and stop interpreting every fart of your ‘bestest comics writer’.
Get a life and stop commenting on random comics blogs. Or at least find your shift key. Sheesh.
Heh. Been a while since we’ve had a drive-by troll asshole here.
I guess one or two are necessary for the blog ecosystem. Sort of like mosquitoes in real life.
Siegfried:
“Moore has been ripped off. DC wants to exploit his property. Let me know when Moore rips off something that DC owns.”
I take it you’ve never read ‘Supreme’?
“The bottom line is that if you create something, it should be yours, not the corporations.”
Moore entered into his agreement with DC eyes wide open. He was grateful at the time for the money– I can attest this as the transcriber of a 1986 interview with him.
He keeps saying that DC stole Watchmen from him by keeping it in print for 25 years, precluding its reversion.
Any other sane writer on Earth would weep tears of gratitude if his publisher kept his book in print for a quarter of a century! Jesus!
It’s true that his royalty rate is scandalously low– 2% versus a standard of 10% and escalating. But we’re talking negociation here.
Moore certainly knew of the treatment of Siegel and Shuster–and knew the contracts he was signing…He often spoke highly of DC in early hiring days. He hardly could have anticipated the long-term keeping-in-print of Watchmen, though, since virtually no “graphic novel” before had ever been in print for anywhere near that long (in fact, few “graphic novels” existed, period). He thought it would revert to him in relatively short order (and V for Vendetta too…which ended up in DC hands, despite beginning in the UK in Warrior).
Still, it wasn’t merely “being ripped off” in terms of rights and royalties that ran Moore off–there were other factors (the proposed and then retracted ratings system was a big one, but there were others).
He has said since then that while he knew of the std. “work-for-hire” contracts, he was unaware of comics basically beginning as part of organized crime. So…he claims…he was unprepared for the industry still basically being run in that fashion.
“Any other sane writer on Earth would weep tears of gratitude if his publisher kept his book in print for a quarter of a century! ”
Not if that meant they were being screwed out of their ownership rights in the book they wouldn’t.
“Moore entered into his agreement with DC eyes wide open. He was grateful at the time for the money– I can attest this as the transcriber of a 1986 interview with him.”
This is kind of the issue. Writers will sign away long term rights for short term cash because the balance of power in the relationship is all with the company. This is what it means to be exploited. There are ways to shift that imbalance of power, most of them involving unions. Be that as it may, the fact remains: just because you’re stupid doesn’t mean you deserve to be screwed over. Just because you’re a jerk doesn’t mean you deserve to be screwed over. Just because it takes you twenty years to realize how badly you’ve been screwed over doesn’t mean you deserve to be screwed over.
Mainstream comics systematically treats its creators very, very badly. It has for decades. You seem to dislike Moore, Alex, and as a result you’re blaming him for being screwed over. I wish you’d reconsider that position — though I guess I don’t have much hope that that’ll happen at this point….
http://www.poormojo.org/pmjadaily/archives/032975.php
Poor Mojo’s Newswire:
The Hooded Utilitarian: Dirty Hippies Who Don’t Read Batman
Noah Berlatsky examines the recent spate of Alan Moore-bashing.
Noah– I can see this is winding up, so I’ll resist the urge to re-state or re-elaborate anything, follow your example, and thank you for the invite. I’m a subscriber to TCJ and I’ll keep an eye out.
Haha! “I can see this is winding up!” Something was clearly wrong with my refresh key, because the last comment I saw before I put mine in was #44, from a whole day ago!
Still, I think it’s time *I* wrapped up my part in it. ‘Til next time.
nobody’s mentioned yet that the watchmen characters are all based on old charlton characters. not that this excuses dc, but does in my opinion complicate the issue of single authorship.
I don’t know. They’re pretty different from their models — and I’d argue that those characters should be public domain at this point anyway. Certainly, there’s no reason that DC should own them.
This is incidentally one of the reasons that you could argue that very strong copyright actually damages creator’s rights. DC can hold the rights to Watchmen essentially forever. If there were a reasonable limit on copyright, though, the property would revert to public domain. Admittedly, the artists couldn’t make money off it then (or not as easily) but no one company could exploit it either. Everybody could make Rorschach plush toys — which I think might make Alan Moore happier, since it would be clear from the get go that none of them were “official”, and that they weren’t part of the original creation.
After reading Alan’s Bleeding Cool interview, I totally get where he’s coming from, and it’s a perspective shared by Bill Watterson. More power to them both for sticking to their gins.
…or GUNS:D (ahh, I should go to bed….)
A spin-off from this thread, “Comics Creators and Contracts,” at http://archives.tcj.com/messboard/viewtopic.php?t=8031 …
Noah,
This is an interesting post, but one that has left me with questions.
I read Campbell’s final quoted statement as saying it’s “unreasonable” for a creator to criticize the state of a genre, or specific works, when that creator has explicitly stated he doesn’t or hasn’t read any works for many years.
Then Campbell likens that behavior to the same exhibited by people who don’t read comics.
Your rebuttal was, unfortunately, a terrific straw man ode to fan entitlement.
Do you think there’s validity in Campbell’s analogy? Is there similarity between these opinions?
What if any obligation does a creator have to “keep up”?
Can someone of Moore’s stature have a valid opinion, given that he doesn’t and hasn’t “kept up”?
Also, it must be said: saying the record industry would never “fuck over” an artist in the way DC fucked over Alan Moore is a poor analogy and patently false.
Alan Moore has written comic books that have no shit shaped my life. He’s made tremendous points in many recent interviews.
But, fuck — it’s also okay to say that the guy occasionally sounds a little bug-fuck crazy.
best,
j
The record industry would absolutely fuck over artists every which way. They wouldn’t have done it *this* way though, because the relationship between creators, fans, and companies are different.
I don’t give a crap if people don’t read comics. I don’t think there’s anything wrong or unreasonable in not reading comics, or not being interested in any art form. I don’t think a creator has a responsibility to keep up, especially not with the limited segment of the market that Moore is talking about.
So, basically, I think both parts of Campbell’s analogy are nonsense, and trying to figure out if they’re comparable seems like an exercise in futility.
Oh…and I don’t think it’s wrong to say that Alan Moore sounds nutty on occasion. I do think it’s wrong to suggest that the nuttiness in any way mitigates the vileness of mainstream corporate practice.
Does anybody ever ask Alan Moore what he thinks of art forms other than comics?
By all accounts that I’ve heard, his prose novel was quite excellent.
“Does anybody ever ask Alan Moore what he thinks of art forms other than comics? ”
Caro,
I don’t know that he’s ever critiqued other mediums as a whole, except for generally disliking Hollywood because of the reliance on special effects and big budget extravaganza (and he may be biased due to his personal encounters with Hollywood types). He’s said modern music is unoriginal similar to the way he thinks modern comics are unoriginal.
I know Moore likes Twin Peaks and The Wire, The Simpsons and South Park, and his Top 10 comic was influenced by NYPD blue (though he didn’t specifically say he liked NYPD blue when asked about it, he neutrally said he could critique it), and liked early Sopranos.
His favorite living author is probably Ian Sinclair. I haven’t read anything by Sinclair, but I recall reading Alan Moore saying his writing is clever enough this it makes Moore feel stupid. (and there’s a bit in the last League based on this)
I think he’s indicated liking Harlan Ellison and Michael Moorcock’s writing. I recall Moore saying one of his favorite books is A Voyage to Arcturus.
Apparently the final chapter of League Century will be set in modern times, with the theme that modern culture is a wasteland. The solicitations mentioned the villain being a “child of magic”- some sort of antichrist figure.
Some people online were speculating it could be some version of Harry Potter. No idea if that’s true, but I know Moore said he disliked the first Harry Potter book.
He’s been working on his second prose novel for years. It’ll apparently be over 1000 pages long.
Voice of the Fire was quite good, I’d recommend it. Interesting formal arrangement. Crazy first chapter. I kind of remember the end being a let down.
>>>I kind of remember the end being a let down.>>
Did it involve a giant telepathic squid being dropped on Earth?
Just curious…
I don’t think so… I think it was Moore walking around Northampton… But I’m really not sure.
Caro: Does anybody ever ask Alan Moore what he thinks of art forms other than comics?
I gather he really doesn’t like movies. He talks about them in ways that suggest they stupify audiences. I don’t really mind, though. I’ve never particualrly cared about Jackson Pollock’s tastes in film or literature, and it’s never stood in the way of my appreciation of his work.
By all accounts that I’ve heard, his prose novel was quite excellent.
Let me be the odd man out on that one. Voice of the Fire isn’t really a novel, by the way. It’s a collection of short stories, unified by the framework of all occuring in Moore’s hometown at various points throughout history. (The stories don’t play off each other in any significant way beyond that.) For my part, I have to say I found it a slog. Prose just isn’t what he’s good at, and the writing in general is heavily overelaborated. I know a number of people liked the opening story, which is told from the point of view of a caveman, but it’s nothing William Golding didn’t do ten times better in The Inheritors.
Moore has been asked about other art forms plenty of times. He’s a big Brian Eno fan, for instance…and has written short essays about erotic art (Beardsley) and poetry about Blake. He used to cite William Burroughs as his biggest influence (that’s going back a ways in the interview archive). He’s a big fan of Mervyn Peake, Michael Moorcock. Was buddies with Kathy Acker apparently, etc. He’s got a big list of influences, etc. I would call Voice a novel, but I’ve got a pretty loose definition. I actually liked his Liavek story better (forgetting it’s name, but it really is a good one).
“The Hypothetical Lizard”–if anyone’s still reading.
I think there’s a strong argument to be made that fannishness and fandom actually retard artistic development.
People come together, realise that there are others out there like them and bond. Initially, it’s a very positive experience.
But then, the “best of” lists and the sense of community create new, stale norms. They become a target for marketing. People who liked superheroes because they were wonderful escapist fantasies start clinging to them as a symbol of tribe membership. People collect “tropes” as if art were a bag of tricks and forms that could be repeated mechanically.
Repeats, remakes and reinventions become the order of the day. Art is replaced with “craft”, much talked of by people who know little or nothing about either.
At that point – and it is usually the point at which the fans care more about the work than the artists – the culture becomes moribund.
Hence – modern fantasy and science fiction. A dull, dead or dying wasteland with nothing to offer but “darker” (i.e. more cosily right-wing, less offensively idealistic) versions of old tropes.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. What does any of that have to do with the subjects under discussion?
I’d contest that science-fiction is in any way moribund. Consider Ian McDonald, Paolo Bacigalupi, Rudy Rucker, Cory Doctorow. Lots of great writers out there.